Search first. Wikipedia is huge, and you can probably find the answer to your question much quicker by looking for it yourself. If there's no useful information on Wikipedia, the internet is a great resource too, so also try a search engine such as Google.
Include a title and a question. It's easier for our voluneers if question formatting is consistent.
Be specific. Clearly state your question and include any information that might help to understand the context (for example, a wikilink or a link to an online resource). If your question deals with local or national issues, make sure you specify what area of the world it applies to.
Do your own homework. The reference desk won't give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there's a specific part of your homework you don't understand. Make an effort to show that you've tried solving it first.
Be patient. Your question probably won't be answered right away, so come back later and check for a response. A complete answer to your question may be developed over a period of up to seven days.
Don't provide contact information, such as your e-mail address, home address, or telephone number. Questions are normally answered on the same page that they are asked. Be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites; making your e-mail address public here may make it very public throughout the Internet.
Sign your question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your question, to let the reference desk know who's asking.
Do not request medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor or lawyer instead.
It's quoted in the article Dog Latin as "often taught, as a joke, to English-speaking students of Latin today," and Google Books shows that it was quoted in the 1945 Proceedings of the annual convention of the Association of Highway Officials of the North Atlantic States (I got the date from the Stanford library catalog). Wareh01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just say that you've got an example of the modal auxiliary verb "should." Our article defines this type of helping verb as "an auxiliary verb (or helping verb) that can modify the grammatical mood (or mode) of a verb," which is etymologically sound, but this is a rather fuzzy concept of mood, not the traditional and strict sense of a definitely identifiable form in a given mood, which you apply in your question. (This is why you won't find "should" forms included in the article English verbs: you can fully conjugate an English verb without getting to "he should X.") Examples of subjunctive forms of "talk": "If he talk," "if he talked/were talking." Imperative, of course, is "Talk!" The article auxiliary verb has a better description of words like "should" in your sentence: "They express the speaker's (or listener's) judgement or opinion at the moment of speaking. Some of the modal verbs have been seen as a conditional tense form in English." I wouldn't go beyond that. The American Heritage Book of English Usage makes the distinction clearly: "most of the functions of the old subjunctive have been taken over by auxiliary verbs like may and should, and the subjunctive survives only in very limited situations." Wareh01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to summarize: yes, it's subjunctive, not imperative... Wareh is noting a dispute on whether or not anything in English should be considered to be "subjunctive" any more, but in no case is this imperative.--Vyasa Ozsvar00:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Subjunctive" runs the risk of becoming meaninglessly vague unless it keeps some close connection to its historical use to refer to the inflection of verb forms (without modal auxiliaries). So I'd actually say it's not a useful or (in many people's view) correct term to apply to "he should talk." My view is that this phrase is neither subjunctive or imperative, though its meaning may be close to meanings of those moods. (The very fact that both subjunctive and imperative moods can be used as alternatives for some of the same meanings, e.g. prohibition and injunction, to my mind proves that meaning, as opposed to morphology, is not a valid criterion for determining whether something is subjunctive.) Wareh15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with you. In form, "You should talk about it with him" seems to be an expression of opinion. The listener might interpret this as a command or at least a strong suggestion, ie. an imperative. However, the syntax of the speaker's words is not governed by the psychological state of the listener. If it had been worded as "If you were to talk about it with him, I think you'd find that ...", then the subjunctive appears. JackofOz06:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone with sufficient knowledge of Brazilian Portuguese and the IPA to confirm how Seu Jorge's name is pronounced? I don't speak any, but it seems as if it would be something perhaps close to: [seu ʒɔɾʒ] . If so, it should be added to the article about him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brentt4 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think that would be the European pronunciation; the Brazilian pronunciation is probably more like [seuʒɔχʒi]. —Angr06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked a Brazilian friend of mine, who said it was ['seʊ'ʒɔɾʒi]. I asked if the [ɾ] there was the "/r/" phoneme or not (which has a bunch of realizations depending on the place, like [h] or [χ] or whatever), and he said "[ɾ] is the more neutral pronunciation in that position (before a consonant)." --Miskwito22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it starts with a normal S, then there´s that vowel which is like the one in "bed", but not quite. It´s more like the one in "lend". Some pronounciations of "can" are exactly what I mean! Then there´s a normal "oo" like in fool, could, should, boo... That makes Seu. Jorge ought to be more complicated to explain... It starts with a normal J like in Jay. But notest that there´s in Jay another sound before the sound I´m talking about: there´s a D sound which doesn´t apply to Jorge. After you get the J without the D, there is a vowel, the very common sound "ee" (like in bee, pee, see). Now there is the letter "o", which is like in pot, rot, caught, bought, lot. And then there´s the "r" which just doesn´t exist in English... It can be in two accents, and neither one exists in English! Habib is an arab word which at least in Brazil is fairly known (don´t know about the US) and the first sound of this word is one accent of R. It´s not like the Spanish "r". Then there is another time the first two sounds which are in the beginning of the word, i.e., the J without the D and the "ee". A.Z.20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean English to Swedish. Anyway, a translation would be "Mitt land - Min kärlek", (Rough pronunciation: "Mit land, min share-leyk" ("le:k" with a long e, a sound naturally absent in English) ) Note that few Swedes would actually say something like this, though, since it's got rather nationalist overtones. 惑乱 分からん23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What "category" would I look under for definitions of slang words used by intelligence agencies of the world - such as "janitor", etc. (I suppose someone to clean up an operation.......or "wipe" a person)
According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, lists of slang are generally discouraged. I couldn't find what you're looking for here. Try [1] or [2] instead, although I couldn't find "janitor" listed in either one. (Love the Canadian term for its secret training facility: Camp X. God, we're so fiendishly devious.) Besides, if we did have such a thing (and I'm not saying we do), we'd have to black-flag you after you read it. Clarityfiend16:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what type of symbols are on the wikipedia puzzle logo? I have tried planetary, alchemy, and astrologic symbols but cannot find a complete list of all the symbolsDapiek0104:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a minute to realize that you were going left-to-right first, then top-to-bottom. The leftmost glyph on row 3 looks like Tibetan to me, rather than an Indian abugida. I already mentioned above what the Greek, Latin, Arabic, Cyrillic, and Hebrew characters were, and it probably shouldn't be hard to figure out the Korean and Klingon ones. Maybe? --Miskwito23:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first, uppermost letter is probably Ւ, the capital Armenian letter "hiwn." The Classical pronunciation is /w/, but it's now prononced /v/, as is Վ, "viw," the first letter in the Armenian transliteration of Wikipedia (Վիքիփեդիա). --Limetom09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, some more I've figured out:
The Thai character (rightmost character of the bottom row) is cho ching: ฉ
The Khmer character in the upper right (row 2) (which Wakuran, you thought was Thai or Lao) is lô: ល
The character below that appears to be the Tibetanwa character (ཝ) with the vowel diacritic for i (ི).
The Klingon character (upper-rightmost character) looks like the Klingon letter for r (on the Omniglot chart anyway)
Hmph! I still maintain it's a ク and not a ワ (the extension of the far left stroke over the top isn't important, so it can be ignored. The key difference between the two is the left overhang: There's basically no overhang on a ク [my font shows the left stroke a bit longer than usual], but there's a large overhang on the ワ. Since there is no overhang on the character used in the logo, Occam's razor suggests a gothic-style ク as opposed to a slanted/warped ワ. Doesn't matter though, as クィ is just as nonsensical as ワィ). freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is italicized [ワィ] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) and not クィ. Italicized ワィ in the MS Gothic font looks similar to the logo. --Kusunose09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the first stroke of ク is slightly curved while that of ワ is straight. As the first stroke of the character in the logo looks straight, I still think it's ワ. There once was a request to modify the logo because it looks like ワィ. --Kusunose08:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know this is silly, but you're not the first person who has disagreed with me and I'd like to be able to convince at least one person that I'm not crazy. For the record, I was one of the people that complained to nohat about the logo (more than a year ago), and you can find my extremely long complaint somewhere back in his talk archives.
Take a look at the わぃ・くぃ of this font (丸ゴシック type), and imagine that they are rotated to match the 3D perspective. The font that Nohat used is probably the one I show here (blue back) which has ウィキペディア written out, and it's clearly a very blocky / straight-line font. The first stroke of ク probably isn't curved (though it would be if it was a higher quality font). It's not like I can't read Japanese or anything, so tell me I'm not crazy! I understand what you mean about it looking more similar to a distorted/stretched ワ, but it doesn't make sense that he would have stretched a ワ in exactly the correct way to make it look like a gothic ク, so I am much more willing to blame a blocky font than a coincidence.
Not to drift even further off-topic, but why not? (I can't really comment on the Japanese thing, since I can't read it. Your explanation sounds reasonable to me, though, not crazy :) ) --Miskwito06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an Arabic word for "matchmaker" (someone who introduces people in the hopes they'll find each other compatible and eventually marry)? If so, what would the word be, and how would it be transliterated into the Roman alphabet? Thank you! --Charlene05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the dictionaries I'm using, the closest single-word expression would probably be خاطبة khātiba, which most literally means basically "woman who makes a proposal of marriage". Since in the original cultural context, this generally couldn't refer to the woman who was actually going to be married, it was therefore interpreted to refer to a woman who proposes a marriage to the two parties (i.e. a matchmaker). However, you should probably discard most "Fiddler on the Roof" influenced romantic nostalgia, because I would bet that traditionally such a khātiba often proposed a marriage to the families (not directly to the couple themselves), and often the couple to be married had little to say in the matter (especially not the future bride).
The masculine would be خاطب khātib (without feminine ending), but this word actually most often refers to a suitor or fiancé (i.e. someone who proposes marriage for himself, not a matchmaker). AnonMoos18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Anonmoos! It seems that the word doesn't describe exactly what I mean, so I'll use the English so there's no confusion. --Charlene14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please help if you can.
When I try to do a word search for Nun I come up with a Nun as in a woman. I'm looking for the Hebrew defination and explanations for the Hebrew 14th letter with the numeric value of 50. Can anyone help? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.21.197 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
